Skip to main content

Clearly, they don't when it comes to those living in North America. But what about those who live elsewhere, like Africa for instance?

Well, below is the complete and unedited text of a press release I received the other day. Which demands that the US end it's support of democratically elected Malian government and laments bitterly that the Gaddafi regime was overthrown.

The release blames the US for everything bad happening in Africa, and gives aid and comfort to those islamists who hate women and are fighting to establish an Al Qaeda state(notice how the Greens accuse Obama of supporting Al Qaeda) there.

I highlighted a number of passeges I found disturbing.

GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.gp.org

For Immediate Release:
Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Contacts:
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-904-7614, mclarty@greens.org
Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene@gp.org

Green Party of the US opposes military intervention in Mali, urges
withdrawal of AFRICOM

• The Mali rebellion is blowback from the U.S./NATO ouster of Gaddafi
from Libya; efforts to gain control of African resources (oil,
uranium, etc.) and competition with China are driving miltiary
policies disguised as 'War on Terrorism', say Greens

• Green Party Speakers Bureau: Greens available to speak on foreign
policy: http://www.gp.org/...

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Obama Administration is pursuing policies in
Africa that threaten regional stability and innocent populations,
including military intervention in Mali and establishment of the
United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), said Green Party leaders.

"AFRICOM represents a continuing escalation of U.S. military presence
in Africa, imposing economic dependence, political domination, and
control over the continent's mineral and other resources. The
U.S./NATO attack on Libya opened the door to further U.S. military
actions in Africa. The African Union, which has 17,000 African troops
in Somalia, is working for the U.S., under CIA direction.
Meanwhile,
the war in Congo continues, in which military forces on the Pentagon
payroll
have perpetrated the worst slaughter since World War II, while
the U.S. has blocked efforts to hold the Rwandan government
accountable for war crimes in the conflict," said Thomas Muhammad,
co-chair of the Green Party Black Caucus
(http://www.gp.org/...) and chair of National
United Black Front (http://www.nbufdallas.net) Dallas Chapter. (See
"US Drones over the D.R.C.?" Ann Garrison interviews Maurice Carney,
Executive Director of Friends of the Congo, KPFA, January 13, 2013,
http://www.anngarrison.com/...)

Under current plans, troops from the 1st Infantry Division will be
sent to Africa to contain al-Qaeda in Mali, but also to conduct
training programs, exercises, and operations in 35 countries and set
the stage for future military intervention. The troops will have the
capability to deploy drones in Africa, if given permission.

"The Obama Administration is using the situation in Mali as an
opportunity to bring Africa under the U.S. sphere of influence -- to
block Chinese influence and win control over precious resources, which
include oil, petroleum, diamonds, copper, gold, iron, cobalt, uranium,
bauxite, silver, certain kinds of wood, and fruit. U.S. operations are
justified by the White House as an extension of the War on Terror and
fight against al-Qaeda. Unfortunately, the terror is suffered by
Africans who face internal conflicts that are aggravated by U.S.
meddling, funding for extremists and oppressive and corrupt regimes,
and in some cases air assaults on their homes," said Romi Elnagar, a
member of the Green Party's International Committee
(http://www.gp.org/...).

Greens noted that the U.S./NATO assault on Libya and aid for Libyan
rebels empowered radical Islamic movements to threaten neighboring
countries.
These include the Wahabi rebels in Mali, which are
supported by the corrupt Wahabist royal family of Saudi Arabia, which
is allied with the U.S. Some of the north African rebel movements have
thus received aid that can be traced to countries outside Africa,
including the U.S.

Moderate Islamist Tuaregs, many of whom suffered reprisals because of the Libyan war and have legitimate demands for human rights and
self-determination, have been caught in the middle in Mali, between
extremists who have joined the rebellion and the Malian government
aided by Western powers trying to quash their bid for independence.
France has its own neo-colonial interests in the region, especially
access to uranium in Tuareg areas for French nuclear reactors.

The Obama Administration is thus playing a dangerous and reckless game
with the lives of innocent Africans,
with blowback that may threaten
U.S. security. (See "Mali, Wahabis and Saudis; Following the Money
Trail" by Thomas C. Mountain, Black Agenda Report, January 8, 2013,
http://blackagendareport.com/...).

The Green Party of the United States opposed President Obama's
military campaign in Libya
, opposes intervention in Mali, and
continues to promote constructive and humane engagement with African
nations instead of imperial policies like AFRICOM, which was
authorized by President Bush in 2007.

"The resistance to al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb -- which gained more
beachheads in Africa as a result of the U.S.-led ouster of Gaddafi --
must take place in Africa, led by Africans, without U.S. interference,
which will only cause greater damage,
" said Greg Gerritt,
International Committee member and liaison to the African Greens Forum
(http://www.africangreens.org).

"Instead of exercising military might, the U.S. should work with
African leaders to promote self-determination and independence and
reverse the devastating effects of the West's racist colonial legacy
in Africa. A Green foreign policy regarding Africa would include
closing of military bases, increased humanitarian assistance for
developing countries, especially aid for the fights against AIDS and
other diseases, trade pacts that encourage workers rights, food and
agricultural security, a clean environment, and greenhouse gas
emissions reductions that are parallel with reductions in the U.S.,
since many of the worst effects of climate changes will be felt in
Africa," added Mr. Gerritt.

See also:

"Mali Invasion Shows That 'Adieu' Does Not Always Mean 'We’re Gone'"
by Mark P. Fancher, Black Agenda Report, January 22, 2013
http://blackagendareport.com/...

"The Master as “Guest”: The U.S. Military Swarms Over Africa" by Glen
Ford, Black Agenda Report, January 8, 2013
http://blackagendareport.com/...

"Susan Rice’s defense of Kagame in Congo puts Obama State Department
on the defensive" by Ann Garrison, San Francisco Bay View, December
19, 2012
http://sfbayview.com/...

"The Geopolitical Reordering of Africa: US Covert Support to Al Qaeda
in Northern Mali,
France 'Comes to the Rescue': NATO funding, arming,
while simultaneously fighting Al Qaeda from Mali to Syria" by Tony
Cartalucci, Global Research, January 15, 2013
http://www.globalresearch.ca/...

"Pentagon planning for multinational military operation in Mali", The
Washington Post, December 5, 2013
http://tinyurl.com/...
"U.S. weighs military support for France’s campaign against Mali
militants", The Washington Post, December 15, 2013
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

"Admin Aids French Bombing of Mali After U.S.-Trained Forces Join
Rebels in Uranium-Rich Region" (transcript), Democracy Now!, January
15, 2013 http://www.democracynow.org/...

MORE INFORMATION

Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org
202-319-7191
• Green candidate database and campaign information:
http://www.gp.org/...
• News Center http://www.gp.org/...
• Speakers Bureau http://www.gp.org/...
• Ballot Access Page http://www.gp.org/...
• Video Page http://www.gp.org/...
• Green Papers http://www.greenpapers.net/
• Google+ http://www.gp.org/...
• Twitter http://twitter.com/...
• Livestream Channel http://www.livestream.com/...
• GP-TV Twitter page http://www.gp.org/...
• Facebook page http://www.gp.org/...

Green Pages: The official publication of record of the Green Party of
the United States
http://gp.org/...

~ END ~

Poll

Should the US butt out and let the bad guys win?

50%6 votes
50%6 votes

| 12 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Quite the sneaky way to introduce... (8+ / 0-)

    ...a Green Party press release in toto under the guise of critiquing it.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 05:51:06 AM PST

  •  Needs more of a critique... (4+ / 0-)

    Essentially, the diary is weighted toward giving space to the GP's broadly conspiratorial view of foreign policy. Sans sufficient critique (you say the GP's statements [and links] are "disturbing"... well, how so?) I can understand where MB's comment above is coming from. A suggestion, then: delete, reword the title, rebut substantively, and repost.

    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

    by angry marmot on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 06:11:56 AM PST

    •  Sometimes, just exposing the rot (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aargh

      is all that's needed.
      As someone who worked hard for decades to build the GPUSA, only to see it destroyed over the past 12 years, it hurts my heart to see them go so far off the beam. The influx of Nadirites precipitated the end of the GPUSA. Prior to 2000, Greens were pragmatic about working with other people when our goals were similar, The Nadirites brought the extremist, binary, combative (somewhat paranoid)(mostly white/male) Purist impulse to the fore. It split the party and has made Green Party meetings at the state level into time wasting grandstands for insufferable ideologues. What was once a party on the rise with a solid ballot line and a respectable 3-5% of the vote, now can't score 1/10 of 1%, even behind an excellent candidate like Dave Cobb.
      This is sad.
      Right at the time when we needed a solid alternative to Bidnez as usual, the best Third Party dissolved into Purist irrelevance.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 07:00:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  this is so sad. (0+ / 0-)

        I´m a Green from Continental Europe; here, the green parties are by now well established.

        We wouldnt dream of putting up something like this nonsense (in the diary). We fought long and hard intraparty battles to get rid of the factions that succumb to such unrealist world views. You there call them CT based we had what we called "K groups". We got past them. And not only in Germany but in France and Austria and Italy and most other places on the continent.

        I think this has something to do with the form of representation. In proportional representation, you get to have some representatives, even if you have only a very small fraction of the vote, as long as it is exceeding some - usually low-  threshold. This means that your people are in the full parliamentary limelight from the beginnings on. This means that the public will fully bring it out if your representatives are ideological crazies. So ideological purity infighting is directly penalised, from the beginning on.

        In the UK for instance where they have this majority system, there the Greens still have troubles with purity ideological based factionalism.

        I do wish you could have a more sane restart of the Greens in the USA. One says hope never dies, I wish you could get it underway again.

  •  there's "the left" and there's "the idiot left" nt (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aargh, jiffypop, Odysseus, SilentBrook

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 06:30:06 AM PST

  •  You need to take the word "hate" out of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nova Land, BleacherBum153, Beelzebud

    the title.

    The title almost deserves HR

    On Black Friday, members of the GP were there with us supporting Walmart Workers. Only one of my fellow Dem blockwalkers showed up. The other Dems didn't even bother to respond.

    The  Greens are basically on our side. (The Progressive side.) And while I disagree with their approach to stopping the Republican agenda, I see no reason to call them haters.

    Being a pacifist does not make one a hater!

    Absolutism as regards Pacifism is simply a view that I disagree with, but see no need to demonize pacifist absolutist.

    WE NEVER FORGET Our Labor Martyrs: a project to honor the men, women and children who lost their lives in Freedom's Cause. For Jan: USW Local Mourns Fallen Brother

    by JayRaye on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 06:55:13 AM PST

  •  We can't afford the Imperial Empire (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries

    We could afford it after WWII when tax rates were high and we had little economic competition.

    Now, we face choices.  Are we going to fully fund the Imperial Empire or are we going to fully fund the safety net?  

    The question will prove to be accurate, but it will apply to poor American black women trying to survive on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  

  •  Does the author beat his wife?!? (0+ / 0-)

    Probably not. Now let me present to you a lengthy treatise defending him against my own outrageous accusations...

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 09:49:30 AM PST

    •  Definately not. (0+ / 0-)

      I don't support what Clinton did in Rwanda during the genocide either, although the Green party probably did.

      •  probably did... ? (0+ / 0-)

        I cannot cite anything to support this, but since I would like it to be true, it probably is.

        While I could not find any GPUS press releases from the Clinton era, I was able to find a position paper that opposed the war in Kosovo, which also listed Rwanda, and many other nations where US supports death and destruction including native ones, and that it was not overmuch appreciated by the party and it's constituent state parties @ http://www.gp.org/...

        Additionally, I did find one article from a despicable mouth piece of that horrid party which did directly mention Rwanda during Clinton's reign @
        No Green Party banner over Rwanda; Broken Bones and Arrests instead
        http://www.greenpartywatch.org/...
        Typically, it did not directly express extreme outrage over Clinton's apparent support for Rwandan murderous rampages, but rather simply meekly mentioned it:

        "This is the Rwanda that Bill and Hillary Clinton and Reverend Rick Warren point to as Africa’s future, “a shining beacon of hope for Africa.” Bill Clinton hung a Global Citizenship Award around Rwandan President Paul Kagame’s neck a week before Reverend Rick Warren presented him with the same International Medal of Peace he presented George Bush with last year.
        This is the Rwanda that the U.S.A. uses to control the vast geostrategic mineral wealth of its neighbor D.R. Congo."

        It doesn't really matter though, as far as your point is concerned, because everyone knows there were no black women living in Rwanda at the time.

  •  I dunno (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aargh

    I do know that in 1994, the Green Party won major party status in New Mexico when their gubanatorial candidate, frmr. Lt. Gov. Roberto Mondragon, garnered 10% of the vote (Incumbent Gov. & DINO Bruce King got 40%, while Gary Johnson [the most recent Libertarian Pres. candidate] won with 50%).

    I also know that in about April of '95, Mondragon very publicly left the Greens, repudiating them as "racist" against hispanics. (I would guess this was rooted in a conflict between enviromentalists supporting Federal agencies as land watchdogs vs. hispanics wanting the personal land rights provided for them in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo to be supported, rather than ignored, which is the historical tendancy.)

    The Greens also:
    1. censured party founder/past chair Abraham Gutmann, for his endorsement of Tom Udall for NM-3 congressional seat, citing Udall as the kind of Democrat and liberal the Greens wanted in office;
    2. took funding from the GOP, which was profered to make the GOP competative in certain races (such as when Christian Fundy Minister Bill Redmond won the NM-3 special election after Bill Richardson quit to join Clinton's cabinet, or how NM-1 was repeatedly held by Heather Wilson when she couldn't get a majority in the district, but the Green candidates took enough votes from the series of Democratic candidates to ensure her wins)

    For me, this was three strikes you're out. Not to mention the Nader debacle. Or the consistant failure of the Greens to win >5% in a statewide race to maintain its majority status. In the end, the Greens failed to deliver on the promise their arrival heralded. That they are still"important" enough to merit a diary here boggles the mind.

    A winning campaign? You didn't build that...

    by SilentBrook on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 10:57:57 AM PST

    •  they are important. (0+ / 0-)

      They should be reinvented. As a sane party, of course. I never fully understood the importance that identity politics has in the US - from all I can see on these pages that would seem to me the central thing a restarted Green party would have to solve: the apparent conflicts between what you term "identities". But well, I dont know a lot about your place. Still .. there can be no mass movement or mass party that has no internal contradictions. One has to embrace them positively, otherwise it´s futile.

    •  As we all know, (0+ / 0-)

      nothing of any import has changed, inside the party or outside of it, since 1994-95. So this is the most damning thing I've ever heard about any group ever.

  •  Anti-Green slander from "aargh" but no rebuttal (0+ / 0-)

    "aargh" is disturbed by the Green Party's release but offers a diatribe, not a rebuttal.

    The statements in the release are based on published news and analysis. "aargh" has every right to disagree with the Green Party's conclusions, but there's no doubt that the US has funded military forces in Congo and other parts of Africa, that the ouster of Gaddafi enabled al-Qaeda forces to gain a presence in Libya (as happened when the US deposed Saddam Hussein in Iraq), that the US (like France) is interested in African resources, or that US interventions have caused some very destructive blowback.

    The Green Party release provides links to its sources of information & analysis. Here are two more articles critical of intervention:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/...
    http://oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/...)

    The release doesn't blame the US for everything bad happening in Africa, that's simply "aargh"'s extrapolation. But the US has had supportive relations with some of the worst regimes in Africa, including Gaddafi himself (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...), just as the US aided Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran War.

    "aargh" and the poll at the bottom of the page presume that opposition to US intervention equals support for bad guys. They replicate the "support our troops" propaganda of ten years ago: if you don't support the US invasion of Iraq, you're on the side of Saddam Hussein. I'm going to guess that if Bush, instead of Obama, had ordered the intervention, "aargh" would have no complaint about the Green Party's press release.

    PS: The Green Party hates Black women so much that it nominated two very strong Black women, Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente, as the Green presidential and vice-presidential candidates in 2008. The Green Party takes positions on racial justice that Obama & the Democratic Party won't touch, like ending the racist War on Drugs & record-high mass incarceration in the US and supporting long-overdue reparations for the descendants of slaves. (The title of the article, which has little relation to the article itself, suggests "aargh" has been taking lessons from Fox News.)

    PPS (to other commenters): It's correct that Green candidates have taken financial contributions from registered Republicans. The Green Party and its candidates refuse corporate money, but accept money from individuals without imposing a test to determine contributors' motives. Democratic candidates, of course, take far more money from wealthy registered Republicans and from pro-GOP corporate lobbies. Such lobbies don't really care about party affiliation when it comes to protecting their own interests and Dems are certainly willing to take their money. Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs gave record amounts of cash to the 2008 Obama campaign (see http://www.opensecrets.org), which paid off nicely when Obama's Justice Dept. refused to hold the firms accountable for criminal acts that triggered the economic meltdown. But I suspect that the real issue here is the right of Greens to run for office and compete with Democrats.

    PPPS: Ralph Nader didn't spoil in 2000, because Al Gore won. Didn't you know?

  •  Better Poll (0+ / 0-)

    Choose one:
    A) Did you stop beating your wife yet?
    B) No, I did not stop beating my wife yet.

    Why even make it a poll?
    Doesn't just asking the question prove we all have wives?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site